[spats]

If the Act specified that developers are obliged to attend these meetings if and only if they are invited by the executive committee then the problems I outlined probably would not arise.

@JimmyT said:

@spats said:
(i) In CERTAIN buildings a developer/builder rep DOES attend all ECMs and AGMs, whilst their building warranty insurance is active, BUT in order to ensure that no claims are made. They do this through lying, bullying etc. in a situation where many owners are inexperienced in strata law and/or where English is not the first language spoken etc. the developer’s word is often taken as THE authority. And strata managers are unlikely to conflict with the developer. I don’t see how your suggestion would help in these instances.

Just to clarify, what I actually said was …

require the developer to attend all AGMs and any executive committee meetings as requested until such times as their obligations regarding defect rectifications had been fulfilled.

So it would be up to to the EC or Owners Corp whether they wanted the developer there or not. If the developer turned up and started intimidating people, it would have to be a pretty dim EC that invited them along.

[spats]

Thank you Jimmy for this thoughtful response to Strata Law Review. I agree with most of what you have said but just a few clarifications needed: Re 8. on competing stakeholders:
(i) In CERTAIN buildings a developer/builder rep DOES attend all ECMs and AGMs, whilst their building warranty insurance is active, BUT in order to ensure that no claims are made. They do this through lying, bullying etc. in a situation where many owners are inexperienced in strata law and/or where English is not the first language spoken etc. the developer’s word is often taken as THE authority. And strata managers are unlikely to conflict with the developer. I don’t see how your suggestion would help in these instances.
(ii) Re: votes of resident owners given an additional weighting: I would support this and go further to suggest that where owner occupiers constitute less than 40% (or some such) that their votes be given an extra weighting anyway on the basis that the building is their home.
(iii) Re: tenants representative: Good idea for small and maybe medium sized buildings but in many large buildings the tenants are very transient so if a tenant is elected it should be a requirement that they have been living in the building for at least two years and have not breached any By Laws. Gathering nominations could be difficult in large buildings.
Thanks again,
Spats

[Author]

Replies